Oodalolly!Oodalolly!

Did they can the stupid curfew provision?

I'm all for this legislation, but Sally Clark really makes herself sound like an out-of-touch, dumbass POLITICIAN when she says it's "good" for everybody. Newsflash, queers: just because you're queer doesn't mean you're on our side.

@2, best I can see it looks like hours will be on a case by case basis.
@3, maybe an ice cream or something.

@2, they shit-canned it, is the short answer. The longer answer involves SDOT, the nightlife code compliance team, and lots of "consulting."

The bathroom amendment made this bill D.O.A. The coucil may have 'passed' it, but requiring written permission to let people use the bathrooms of the very people who were against the law in the first place (retailers and restauranteurs) means no street food trucks in seattle, practically anywhere.

@6:

IME, drunk people wandering around a nightlife area at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning have already figured out convenient places to relieve themselves. For example, check the aroma around any storefront that's not open during those hours to see what I mean. Ditto, the area between any two adjacent dumpsters.

Hey - now I can finally quit my desk job and start a food-truck business. Oh - wait, I have a pre-existing health condition. Never mind.

In two blindly stupid measures, Seattle's city council has declared war on neighborhood restaurants, the very constituency it should be courting, not harming. Mandating paid sick leave for all employees (i.e, health insurance) without providing a subsidy of funding mechanism is madness. Now the city is subsidizing vulture food trucks with below-market "parking" fees, turning the city into a landlord and competitor for restaurant business.

I'm not against street food, but Seattle's getting it exactly wrong, while Portland (with food pods equipped with city-supplied power, water, sewage) gets it right.

Nor am I against universal health insurance. But this is unfairly "targeted" health insurance, way beyond the purview of a municipality.

@9

sorry, but if your nuevo, northwest, pacific rim, thai-chinese-japanese fusion, locavore, small plates joint can't make it against a cart slinging hot dogs, you've got some issues. if i'm hitting a food truck/cart it's because i don't have time for a restaurant (i.e. - am drunk or have 20 minutes for lunch).

but keep jerking yourself off believing that the very same people who were going out for a nice meal of locally raised, slow braised boar with a side of lacinato kale and a glass of french rose would rather drop $2 bucks on a taco from a street vendor. because "...food trucks are leeches, sucking blood out of nearby restaurants."

Oh, I think it's even worse than that @10. @9's real issue isn't with the cheap-eats food trucks themselves, but with the sort of clientele they'll attract: you know, young people who like to stay out past 11:00 p.m. and don't pull down high five-figure salaries working for established "New Media" content providers, and who probably don't even live in the neighborhood, if "neighborhood" is defined as "$400K loft condos in buildings on the Hill that before conversion used to be full of $800 a month loft apartments."

@11, that's Dominic's dad. He writes about restaurants and the pressures they face, among other things, and from what I've read he doesn't seem how you describe at all. Here's some of his work, now available on Crosscut:
http://crosscut.com/account/Cornichon/

@6, That's not a city amendment--it's a Health Department requirement and always has been.